Height & Weight Player Archetypes

[T4VERTS]

Quote: Originally Posted by Sucram7777

Play for Play, when running that Streak or Deep Post, shouldn't the first guy - despite the lower overall - perform better at getting the seperation just due to that being his niche Archetype?

No he should perform better as a deep threat because of the attributes that gave him that 90 deep threat rating not because of the archetype itself, this is the big disconnect I think here and around the internet. The archetype is a formula's take on who is best fit to be used in this way. The formula uses attributes that are truly what make the player good at these uses, that is in the person who wrote the formula's opinion.

If a player is higher OVR in deep threat it would mean he has better release attributes, jumping, etc which is then quantified by the higher OVR for deep threat. If the guy has 82 deep threat he probably lacks some of those deep threat attributes which is why he is lower than your 79 overall rated (90 deep threat) guy.

Archetypes drive progression and how that is handled along with tie in to schemes. Attributes are now , and will be for the foreseeable future, what dictates game play.

[adembroski]

The way I've conceptualized this is as follows; what you set your scheme as represents how you've oriented your coaching. Your team is built to teach a certain skill set and it works best with players who are already oriented toward that skillset.

A player not fitting a scheme does not make him a worse player. Is Julio Jones a worse player because he plays in the outside zone west coast scheme that favors smaller, quicker receivers? No, he's not, he's still an elite WR.

Players who aren't elite won't perform as well in schemes in which they don't fit primarily because they don't fit. You don't need to penalize them, that's redundant. As I said in another thread, if you're running power with McKinnon, you don't need to penalize him. He doesn't forget how to juke, he's just not going to be effective on iso as he is in outside zone.

Just like in real life, you can use guys who don't quite fit to fill holes, but you're going to want to develop guys who do long term.

Let me reiterate: Not being a "fit" in a given system does not make one a worse football player. Penalties are redundant. It just means you aren't the perfect player for that spot. That's organic.

What you're really asking for is playbook knowledge and learning, and some kind of simulation of the time it takes to acclimate to new verbiage. That's fine, I'd like something like that too. But it doesn't belong in the scheme system.

As for height and weight; that used to play in, back when we had sub-ratings (Intangible, Size, etc.), but the tuning for that was awful so it was ditched. It's going to be on the rating guy and the draft class makers to ensure people fit their style. Also, do you really have a problem with guys who are good at everything being high in all categories?

[Dallascs13]

Quote: Originally Posted by adembroski

Also, do you really have a problem with guys who are good at everything being high in all categories?

No, I have a problem with a guy who is knowingly below average in a category IRL, being represented as a guy who is good at everything in madden. (Dak Prescott)

& Derick Henry again.... is considered elusive... why?

[T4VERTS]

Quote: Originally Posted by adembroski

As for height and weight; that used to play in, back when we had sub-ratings (Intangible, Size, etc.), but the tuning for that was awful so it was ditched. It's going to be on the rating guy and the draft class makers to ensure people fit their style. Also, do you really have a problem with guys who are good at everything being high in all categories?

I forget who mentioned it, but they did say the RPM system allowed for new mid air collisions, I wonder what that may mean for WR/DB interactions in jump balls as far as bigger bodied WR's knocking smaller guys out of the way?

[briz1046]

Quote: Originally Posted by Dallascs13

No, I have a problem with a guy who is knowingly below average in a category IRL, being represented as a guy who is good at everything in madden. (Dak Prescott) & Derick Henry again.... is considered elusive... why?

That's much more a ratings issue than a scheme/archetypes one though maybe the formulae differences could be more profound

The issue of inflated ratings won't ever be resolved until the Madden community as a whole stops badgering whoever does the ratings with demands that player X should be higher etc

[T4VERTS]

Quote: Originally Posted by briz1046

That's much more a ratings issue than a scheme/archetypes one though maybe the formulae differences could be more profound The issue of inflated ratings won't ever be resolved until the Madden community as a whole stops badgering whoever does the ratings with demands that player X should be higher etc

Exactly, archetype by definition is a very typical example of a certain person or thing.In reality what it is saying is this number represents how good of an example of this type this player is, that's all.

[adembroski]

Quote: Originally Posted by Dallascs13

No, I have a problem with a guy who is knowingly below average in a category IRL, being represented as a guy who is good at everything in madden. (Dak Prescott) & Derick Henry again.... is considered elusive... why?

That is WAY the wrong way to think about archetype ratings.

They are not a measure of how good a player is at that thing. That's what the individual ratings are for. They are a measure of how effective the player is going to be in a scheme that favors that type of player.

Think of it this way; is there ANY scheme in which you'd take Darren Sproles over Ezekiel Elliott? **** no, even if it's a scheme that favors an elusive back, Zeek is an elite back and is going to be better NO MATTER WHAT the scheme is.

Sproles will have a higher elusiveness rating, but he wont have a higher elusive archetype rating because even in an elusive scheme, Elliott is a better back.

The archetype ratings reflect this.

[briz1046]

Quote: Originally Posted by adembroski

Think of it this way; is there ANY scheme in which you'd take Darren Sproles over Ezekiel Elliott? **** no, even if it's a scheme that favors an elusive back, Zeek is an elite back and is going to be better NO MATTER WHAT the scheme is. Sproles will have a higher elusiveness rating, but he wont have a higher elusive archetype rating because even in an elusive scheme, Elliott is a better back. The archetype ratings reflect this.

Not strictly relevant but I've long felt using Sproles as the example here is slightly unfair , he may be short but he's built, and at least earlier in his career had all round ability, just played behind Tomlinson, I think Reggie Bush or Chris Thompson would be better used